Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Before you accept the corporate media version of the Obama
Administration’s decision landscape for what now appears to be an inevitable,
illegal attack on another sovereign nation, please take another look.

Here are some inconvenient facts and analyses:

Firstly, it is not clear at all that the Syrian military
were the sole perpetrators of sarin gas use on civilians in the Syrian conflict.In May 2013, UN investigator Carla del Ponte
reported in connection with the suspected use of sarin gas: ‘This was use on
the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities’ (see
the Daily Mail and Der Spiegel among others).

This was after numerous interviews with victims and victims’
families in the neighborhoods where the attacks took place and the acquisition
of forensic proof that the rockets carrying the nerve agent were launched from
rebel-held areas.This view was disputed
by the US and Britain.However, it was
Ms. Del Ponte’s team who were on the ground, under the auspices of the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights, doing first hand investigation.Consequently, we must reasonably accept at the
very least, that this is still a debatable point.The US mainstream media seem to have
forgotten these details.

Assuming that a unilateral military attack is legal, which
it is not under the UN Charter and international law, is attacking one side in
a conflict under the presumption of guilt a morally justifiable act when there
is evidence that both sides are perpetrators of the same offense?

Secretary of State Kerry and other State Department
officials have insisted, as a matter of fact, that the Syrian government delayed
on the question of UN inspection of the East Ghouta area (the alleged and
recent location of nerve gas use).In
fact, the request was not delivered to the Syrians until Saturday, in person,
by UN representative Angela Kane and the Syrians responded within one day with
an affirmative answer. This was confirmed by the UN.

The State Department also insists that the Syrians are
destroying evidence with the continued shelling of Ghouta, but both the Syrians
and UN inspectors, who observe that a ceasefire has remained intact in the
area, dispute this.

Western media sources reported that UN inspections were halted
by sniper fire and in many cases made the inference that the sniper fire came
from Syrian troops, when in fact the inspections went ahead on schedule.Oddly, the fact that Syrian officials were
escorting the UN inspectors to the crime scene seems to have escaped US mainstream
media sources.Why would the Syrians
fire on their own officials after their government approved the inspection,
publicly announced it and personally escorted UN inspectors there?

There are two problems with the US rationale.

First, they insisted on allowing inspections of East Ghouta
by UN inspectors, but then tried to get UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon to
call off the inspections after it was clear that the Syrians would comply,
thereby removing putative justification for US military action.The public rationale for this was concern over
the presumed quality of remaining evidence.In other words, the discovery of more uncertainty would not be useful to
US unilateral aims.

Second, the US has completely disregarded the fact that some
evidence exists that rebel forces had already used sarin.

After listening to C-SPAN today, it is clear that the State
Department is engaged in double-speak.While insisting that the US would act in a legal fashion, they refused
to offer a legal rationale for military action, despite repeated questions from
members of the press who actually appeared to be doing their job at the State
Department briefing.

Some points to ponder:If the US, once again, attacks a sovereign nation in violation of the UN
Charter and international law and in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution,
on what basis will we be able to prevent China or Russia from doing the same anywhere
in the world should they decide to do so?How can the law only apply to others, but not the US?How is it justifiable to take action for
presumed crimes that have not yet been fully investigated by UN inspectors who,
as I write, are trying to complete their legal responsibilities under international
law?

Almost without exception, US unilateral military interventions
in foreign conflicts have resulted in increased civilian casualties after the
strikes take place.Civilian casualties
always occur, but are glossed over, as was the case with the bombing campaign
in Libya.Doctors on the ground there and
Human Rights Watch, among others, reported scores of civilian deaths as a
direct result of the airstrikes.NATO
left the post-strike investigation responsibilities to the transitional rebel
government: in other words the very people who benefited from the bombing campaign.They have shown no interest in undertaking an
investigation and western media have dropped the story, but initial
on-the-ground evidence is disturbing.

It is popular myth that President Clinton’s illegal bombing of
Serbia and Kosovo reduced the level of slaughter taking place there.But as the Wall Street Journal and an in
depth study by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)
revealed, mass killings increased after the bombing campaign took place.This fact was further demonstrated with
exculpatory evidence presented in the subsequent war crimes trials of Slobodan
Milosevic and his henchmen.

But what of the ghastly abomination taking place in
Syria?How can we stand idly by?These questions are legitimate and urgent,
but should be put in the context of our recent world history.It is also fair to ask if this is a genuine
motivation for US military involvement.Where was US military action during the Rwandan genocide, which led to
the murder of 500,000 people?

Where was US military action when the Indonesian government,
after illegally annexing East Timor, slaughtered 250,000 people using
US-supplied arms and funding?

Examples abound.

What is different about these countries than say Iraq or
Syria?Are their citizens of less value?

If we have learned anything from US militarism ersatz
diplomacy it is that there are always unknown and underestimated
consequences.Some immediate questions:
If there are US-led bombings, will Hezbollah make true on its promise to attack
Israel?Certainly Israel will make good
on its promise to retaliate with unmatched force.What will then happen in Lebanon?What will happen to an already
refugee-strained Jordan?In the chaos
that ensues, what will come of internecine battles between Al Qaeda affiliated
rebels and Hezbollah inside and outside of Syria?

What else will go wrong?

One thing we can count on is oil prices going up and the
Saudi’s and Big Oil making more money.We can also count on the big US defense contractors making a big
windfall.And you can be sure that more
people will die and the Middle East will become increasingly unstable.